Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[parkplace33]

Would anyone have concerns if ML did the exact opposite? Scenario:

Immediately after the theft, ML informs the consignors about the stolen cards and removes those cards from the auctions. Auction runs without the cards.

If that happened, would we still have a 600 comment post on net 55?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Would anyone have concerns if ML did the exact opposite? Scenario:

Immediately after the theft, ML informs the consignors about the stolen cards and removes those cards from the auctions. Auction runs without the cards.

If that happened, would we still have a 600 comment post on net 55?

Yes as no matter what they done it would have been wrong for a few and news to the rest of us.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Would anyone have concerns if ML did the exact opposite? Scenario:

Immediately after the theft, ML informs the consignors about the stolen cards and removes those cards from the auctions. Auction runs without the cards.

If that happened, would we still have a 600 comment post on net 55?

I think there are 3 people left reading this but that is an interesting question. I think it was posed early on but I think the usual and customary thing we see is that when a house has an issue with a lot (whatever the reason) while the auction is going on, they pull the lot. For whatever reason the house decided the lot cannot be sold, shipped, etc. I have seen this with larger auctions where 3 or 4 lots are pulled.

54 key lots is a big deal. It would not be a forgone conclusion the remaining lots would have done better because those bidding on the 54 stolen lots may have had zero interest in other lots in the auction. Also you might have lost bidders too because those 54 lots were drawing people into the auction but that in and of itself is not a reason to let the auction go on with the missing lots.

Generally speaking I think we all prefer to be bidding on things we are relying on the house to have and be able to ship. It is why when we get something from an auction where the image and/or the description do not agree with the item once in hand, we are disappointed.

As has been said over and over this was a no win situation for the company once they shipped the cards to nobody in the middle of nowhere.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Would anyone have concerns if ML did the exact opposite? Scenario:

Immediately after the theft, ML informs the consignors about the stolen cards and removes those cards from the auctions. Auction runs without the cards.

If that happened, would we still have a 600 comment post on net 55?

I think few, if any, people would've had an issue with that.

Nobody would say, "Wait! They should've deceived all their bidders so they could see what people would've been willing to pay, for purposes of filing their insurance claim."

[G1911]

There'd probably be a split, one could credibly argue that removing 54 of the best cards would lose some bidders interest and could be bad for consigners, just as one can credibly argue that smaller consigners may have lost some bids by people budgeting for the bigger cards that were not actually for sale.

When people argue from the outcome that is most beneficial to them instead of what makes sense or is honest, there will always be a split because somebody doesn't do as well in each scenario.

The difference, of course, is that the other path is actually honest and the path taken of hosting a fraudulent auction (still waiting for the lawsuit) is blatantly dishonest. I have learned from this board that dishonesty that is beneficial to certain people is a good thing though and the truth should not ever intrude and the common sense 'being honest is the right path' is a silly absurdity and I am stupid for wondering how Memory Lane acquired this bizarrely unique insurance plan that requires hosting of said fraudulent auction.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think few, if any, people would've had an issue with that.

Nobody would say, "Wait! They should've deceived all their bidders so they could see what people would've been willing to pay, for purposes of filing their insurance claim."

As a consignor, even if I didn't have one of the 54 stolen lots, I'd be pissed. It would leave a massive negative impression on the entire auction. I've said it before I think pulling that many key lots actually HURTS the remaining lots.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As a consignor, even if I didn't have one of the 54 stolen lots, I'd be pissed. It would leave a massive negative impression on the entire auction. I've said it before I think pulling that many key lots actually HURTS the remaining lots.

Either continue the auction or end the whole thing. Just pulling the stolen lots would have been a terrible idea.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Either continue the auction or end the whole thing. Just pulling the stolen lots would have been a terrible idea.

I agree.

I honestly don't know what I would've done in a similar situation. It's just not as black and white as people want it to be.

[Kidnapped18]

A few observations
- Memory Lane (possibly other AH's) needs to take into consideration some points good and bad that have been made in these posts
- ML I believe was in a Catch 22 as evidenced by some that agree with what they did and some that are calling the auction fraudulent
- I tend to think if I was in the position ML was in I would at the very least notify the bidders of the stolen items halted bidding and/or pulled the items but I'm not and I don't know everything the ML higher ups know so this is just an observation from the outside
- Notification and pulling the cards would have at least allow bidders to go after some other items with their available funds and when the cards are located then they can be put up for auction when in ML hands
- While I don't agree that they kept the auction going for the stolen items without any notification to the bidders I plan to place bids with them in the future if they have items I am interested in
- I was a bidder and winner in this last auction and I don't feel like ML committed fraud on me but my items were not some of the stolen property at least that I know of...

Glad we have this forum where we can agree, disagree and discuss collecting baseball cards!

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I agree.

I honestly don't know what I would've done in a similar situation. It's just not as black and white as people want it to be.

[Republicaninmass]

Good news is



MEMORY LANE IS ACCEPTING SUMMER CONSIGNMENTS!!

Anyone know their shipping address for Fed ex??

Wha (sic) too soon?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As a consignor, even if I didn't have one of the 54 stolen lots, I'd be pissed. It would leave a massive negative impression on the entire auction. I've said it before I think pulling that many key lots actually HURTS the remaining lots.

So, deceive bidders to benefit the consigners?

Suppose a bidder on a stolen lot called with some questions about it. Like, will you ship it out expedited so as to be presented as a birthday gift? Or, will you ship it UPS instead of Fedex, because my local Fedex driver is unreliable?

If you chose to continue the auction with the stolen lots, and you were on the phone with a bidder on some of those lots, would you basically lie directly to them, if it was necessary to continue the deceit? And I don't mean YOU, I mean the AH in this hypothetical.

[Peter_Spaeth]

One thing to consider that I hadn't really thought about, and I haven't read every post so maybe it's been discussed, is this: was it kosher for ML not to tell consignors for days that their cards had been stolen and were missing? To get Scott's take, would you feel comfortable not telling consignors, on the theory that you'd make them whole in the end anyhow?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One thing to consider that I hadn't really thought about, and I haven't read every post so maybe it's been discussed, is this: was it kosher for ML not to tell consignors for days that their cards had been stolen and were missing? To get Scott's take, would you feel comfortable not telling consignors, on the theory that you'd make them whole in the end anyhow?

It seems like the side that is ok with running the fake auction has in mind establishing value from the results. If that was the purpose you can’t let the situation be known to consignors or anyone else or those results would be called even more into question. Pulling the items instead of running a fake auction would have allowed immediate communication with consignors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

It seems like the side that is ok with running the fake auction has in mind establishing value from the results. If that was the purpose you can’t let the situation be known to consignors or anyone else or those results would be called even more into question. Pulling the items instead of running a fake auction would have allowed immediate communication with consignors.

Yes absolutely. If you continue the auction, you have to keep it from them. So is that OK?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One thing to consider that I hadn't really thought about, and I haven't read every post so maybe it's been discussed, is this: was it kosher for ML not to tell consignors for days that their cards had been stolen and were missing? To get Scott's take, would you feel comfortable not telling consignors, on the theory that you'd make them whole in the end anyhow?

Sorry to keep copping out, but I would do what my attorney and law enforcement told me.

What would I LIKE to do? Tell the consignors immediately, give everyone the option to pull their items (or remaining items as the case may be) and if too many consignors wanted out because of the situation, cancel the auction, tell everyone what happened and rely on insurance to make my affected consignors whole and return the items if consignors didn't want to reschedule them. I simply don't know if that was a possibility.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, deceive bidders to benefit the consigners?

Suppose a bidder on a stolen lot called with some questions about it. Like, will you ship it out expedited so as to be presented as a birthday gift? Or, will you ship it UPS instead of Fedex, because my local Fedex driver is unreliable?

If you chose to continue the auction with the stolen lots, and you were on the phone with a bidder on some of those lots, would you basically lie directly to them, if it was necessary to continue the deceit? And I don't mean YOU, I mean the AH in this hypothetical.

I get it, and obviously I'm talking in hypotheticals as well, when not talking completely out of my ass.

I just can't imagine ML doing this without advice of counsel and possibly law enforcement. So I would have to turn to them in the scenario you outlined.

My fiduciary duty is to my consignor, that does NOT allow me to operate in bad faith with my buyers using that duty as a cover. With that in mind that is why I feel very strongly that this decision wasn't made lightly, or even independently of advice from counsel or an outright request form law enforcement.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, deceive bidders to benefit the consigners?

Suppose a bidder on a stolen lot called with some questions about it. Like, will you ship it out expedited so as to be presented as a birthday gift? Or, will you ship it UPS instead of Fedex, because my local Fedex driver is unreliable?

If you chose to continue the auction with the stolen lots, and you were on the phone with a bidder on some of those lots, would you basically lie directly to them, if it was necessary to continue the deceit? And I don't mean YOU, I mean the AH in this hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I get it, and obviously I'm talking in hypotheticals as well, when not talking completely out of my ass.

I just can't imagine ML doing this without advice of counsel and possibly law enforcement. So I would have to turn to them in the scenario you outlined.

So if your attorney recommended you lie directly to your bidders, you would follow that advice, in order to keep the phantom auction lots alive and not risk revealing the true situation?

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

My fiduciary duty is to my consignor, that does NOT allow me to operate in bad faith with my buyers using that duty as a cover. With that in mind that is why I feel very strongly that this decision wasn't made lightly, or even independently of advice from counsel or an outright request form law enforcement.

Here you seem to be saying you would go against your attorney's advice, if it meant dealing with your buyers in bad faith.

Everyone who is simplifying this down to: "Do what your attorney says" is basically saying: "your attorney will advise according to your self-interest, so do that - do what is in your self interest. Then hide behind your attorney."

Stuff (and money) trumps all.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So if your attorney recommended you lie directly to your bidders, you would follow that advice, in order to keep the phantom auction lots alive and not risk revealing the true situation?



Here you seem to be saying you would go against your attorney's advice, if it meant dealing with your buyers in bad faith.

Everyone who is simplifying this down to: "Do what your attorney says" is basically saying: "your attorney will advise according to your self-interest, so do that - do what is in your self interest. Then hide behind your attorney."

Stuff (and money) trumps all.

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Would anyone have concerns if ML did the exact opposite? Scenario:

Immediately after the theft, ML informs the consignors about the stolen cards and removes those cards from the auctions. Auction runs without the cards.

If that happened, would we still have a 600 comment post on net 55?

There'd be a groundswell of support for the AH and the consignors who were victims of a crime, and the thread would have died about 100-odd expressions of support into it. Instead, we have a polarizing, endless debate essentially over whether two wrongs make a right.

Of course, that would be on "net 55". On Net 54 it would pretty much turn into a dumpster fire regardless.

[BigfootIsReal]

Please, don't let this thread die, it deserves life!

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Would anyone have concerns if ML did the exact opposite? Scenario:

Immediately after the theft, ML informs the consignors about the stolen cards and removes those cards from the auctions. Auction runs without the cards.

If that happened, would we still have a 600 comment post on net 55?

That’s exactly what they should have done, Bottom Line…you nailed it.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

That’s exactly what they should have done, Bottom Line…you nailed it.

Thank you, I'm sure their legal team may or may not agree.

Which is truly the bottom line...for them.

Regardless of the opinions of the Supreme Court of message boards.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thank you, I'm sure their legal team may or may not agree.

Which is truly the bottom line...for them.

Regardless of the opinions of the Supreme Court of message boards.

Do you not offer your opinion on many topics throughout this forum? I hope it was at the advice of counsel or LE because on its face it seems like such a bad move. I believe the head of the AH is permanently enjoined from make false misrepresentations in connection with the sale of goods and services so there would have to be cover on that front.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Do you not offer your opinion on many topics throughout this forum? I hope it was at the advice of counsel or LE because on its face it seems like such a bad move. I believe the head of the AH is permanently enjoined from make false misrepresentations in connection with the sale of goods and services so there would have to be cover on that front.

Well an education probably would have taught you there is fact vs opinion. "The bottom line" may or may not be related to a million dollar loss to an auction house or the upsetting the Supreme Court. You decide, but I couldn't sustain a loss like that.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Well an education probably would have taught you there is fact vs opinion. "The bottom line" may or may not be related to a million dollar loss to an auction house or the upsetting the Supreme Court. You decide, but I couldn't sustain a loss like that.

Education obviously means little most of the time. I personally love the few posters that like to post their opinion like it is a fact and then argue it is a fact like their life depends on it. It is quit entertaining if you can get past how silly it is.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Education obviously means little most of the time. I personally love the few posters that like to post their opinion like it is a fact and then argue it is a fact like their life depends on it. It is quit entertaining if you can get past how silly it is.

Certainly makes a case to NOT use the ignore feature

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

That’s exactly what they should have done, Bottom Line…you nailed it.

As soon as ya'll run a major auction company, you can do whatever it is you like. It's so easy.
.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Leon

As soon as ya'll run a major auction company, you can do whatever it is you like. It's so easy.
.

Correct integrity goes a long way :-)